Bash McCain's military record

[RTO]

Clark was relieved of command in Bosnia. I believe much of the stuff on the Internet about his involvement in Waco is a hoax.

Not much arguement about the fact the tanks used were under his command.

Was he actually there in Waco? I doubt it.

Was he unaware his tanks were going into 'combat'? I doubt it.

[CloakAndDagger]

Page not found.

I'm sure this could just be viewed as rhetoric, but the facts are clear. Wesley Clark was in charge of III Corps, III Corps tanks were used in the final siege. And finally, Congress didn't approve the raid. Only a meeting between Clark, Reno and the Justice Dept took place.
Only U.S. Marines and Navy are exempt from Posse Comitatus.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... LE_ID=3509

From the article:

Between August 1992 and April 1994, Clark was commander of the 1st Cavalry Division of the Army's III Corps at Fort Hood, Texas.

...

Each of these M1A1 Abrams vehicles is armed with a 125-millimeter cannon, a 50-caliber machine gun and two 30-caliber machine guns, which are all very heavily controlled items, requiring controls much like a chain of legal custody.

As much as I dislike Clark, some of your information does not match what's in the article (in charge of 1st Cav Div vs. III Corps, I can't comment which one is accurate).

In addition, some of the article has obvious bad info (on the M1A1). I also seem to vaguely remember watching the Waco incident on TV and seeing M60 tank(s) (-> TXNG) rather than M1's (being at work right now I can't use YouTube to check my memory).

M1A1: 105mm rifled
M1A2: 120mm smoothbore

[Silverback]

Page not found.

I'm sure this could just be viewed as rhetoric, but the facts are clear. Wesley Clark was in charge of III Corps, III Corps tanks were used in the final siege. And finally, Congress didn't approve the raid. Only a meeting between Clark, Reno and the Justice Dept took place.
Only U.S. Marines and Navy are exempt from Posse Comitatus.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... LE_ID=3509

From the article:

Between August 1992 and April 1994, Clark was commander of the 1st Cavalry Division of the Army's III Corps at Fort Hood, Texas.

...

Each of these M1A1 Abrams vehicles is armed with a 125-millimeter cannon, a 50-caliber machine gun and two 30-caliber machine guns, which are all very heavily controlled items, requiring controls much like a chain of legal custody.

As much as I dislike Clark, some of your information does not match what's in the article (in charge of 1st Cav Div vs. III Corps, I can't comment which one is accurate).

In addition, some of the article has obvious bad info (on the M1A1). I also seem to vaguely remember watching the Waco incident on TV and seeing M60 tank(s) (-> TXNG) rather than M1's (being at work right now I can't use YouTube to check my memory).

M1A1: 105mm rifled
M1A2: 120mm smoothbore

1st Cavalry was subordinate to III Corps.

[Jim]

Assault (April 23): Hundreds of federal agents, military vehicles (with their normal weapon systems removed): 9-10 M3 Bradleys, 4-5 M728 Combat Engineering Vehicles (CEV's) armed with CS gas, 2 M1A1 Abrams tanks, 1 M88 tank retriever[1][4]

This is the Force. They were equipped with Abrams, not M-60's.

[Silverback]

Page not found.

I'm sure this could just be viewed as rhetoric, but the facts are clear. Wesley Clark was in charge of III Corps, III Corps tanks were used in the final siege. And finally, Congress didn't approve the raid. Only a meeting between Clark, Reno and the Justice Dept took place.
Only U.S. Marines and Navy are exempt from Posse Comitatus.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=35094

Worldnet daily is a non-source! I am not sure why a link won't work but if you like I can send you the GAO report about the supposed military involvement at Waco.

EDITED TO ADD Try this link

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/ns00240r.pdf

This is in reference to the General Accounting Office in regards to the high explosive ammo they borrowed from the Army. If Congress approved the siege then why did the The Senate Judiciary Committee and the House Government Reform Committee investigate the legality of the incident? Nowhere did I see a docket number regarding the approval by the Armed Services Committee for the siege.

Yeah I found the wrong reference, but there was a GAO investigtion into the accusation that "Elite military forces" were involved in Waco. There has never been any solid proof of a violation of Posse Comitatus.

[rgrjoe175]

Worldnet daily is a non-source!

Take your pick Worldnet Daily, Enquirer, Globe... all solid information providers.

non-source is an understatement.

[Ranger Bill]

As I wrote earlier, I believe much, and not all, of what I have read about the incident is internet hoax. If Clark was III Corps Commander at the time, the armor would have come from one of his units, either mobilized gaurd or active, and he would have been ordered to provide them by his higher headquarters. No credible source suggests he directed or planned any attack. This was an operation run by the Justice Department and FBI. I hold no water for Clark and think his comments about McCain's service are totally inappropriate. But he is not responsible for what happened at Waco.

[kdop]

Going back to the beginning of the post, I have a real fear about what will happen if Obama is elected.

http://www.hypemovie.com/

Scary. I imagine a mass exodus from the Military would be inevitable.

[Horned Toad]

The one thing I have noticed about World Net Daily is they post stuff early. I use it as a good place to keep an eye on hot topics. If it’s something that interest me I see if I can find out info from more non biased sources.

[BruteForce]

I'm sure this could just be viewed as rhetoric, but the facts are clear. Wesley Clark was in charge of III Corps, III Corps tanks were used in the final siege. And finally, Congress didn't approve the raid. Only a meeting between Clark, Reno and the Justice Dept took place.
Only U.S. Marines and Navy are exempt from Posse Comitatus.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/artic ... E_ID=35094

The original act referred only to the United States Army. The Air Force was added in 1956, and the Navy and the Marine Corps have been included by a regulation of the Department of Defense. The United States Coast Guard, when acting in its peacetime capacity (originally as part of the Department of the Treasury, now within the Department of Homeland Security), is not included in the act. However, if in wartime, a portion of the United States Coast Guard were subsumed within the Department of the Navy, as it was during World War II, that portion, under the Act, would lose its federal police power authority and responsibility over the federal law enforcement duties of its civilian mission. This law is often mentioned when it appears that the Department of Defense is interfering in domestic disturbances.

Recent legislative events

HR5122 also known as the John Warner Defense Authorization Act was signed by the president on Oct 17, 2006 John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007. Section 1076 Text of Hr5122 is titled "Use of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies". Removing the legalese from the text, and combining multiple sentences, it provides that: The President may employ the armed forces to restore public order in any State of the United States the President determines hinders the execution of laws or deprives people of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws. The actual text is on page 322-323 of the legislation. As of 2008, these changes were repealed, changing the text of the law back to the original 1807 wording, under Public Law 110-181 (H.R. 4986, Section 1068)

[Jim]

Speaking of Wes Clark, his Wikipedia entry contains interesting information. BTW, the Russian Federation issued a medal for the participants in the highlighted incident.

Priština International Airport
One of Clark's most debated decisions during his SACEUR command was his attempted operation at Priština International Airport immediately after the end of the Kosovo War. Russian forces had arrived in Kosovo and were heading for the airport on June 12, 1999, two days after the bombing campaign ended, expecting to help police that section of Kosovo. Clark, on the other hand, had planned for the Kosovo Force to police the area. Clark called then-Secretary General of NATO Javier Solana, and was told "of course you have to get to the airport" and "you have transfer of authority" in the area. The British commander of the Kosovo Force, General Mike Jackson, however refused to block the Russians through military action reportedly saying "I'm not going to start the Third World War for you." Jackson has said he refused to take action because he did not believe it was worth the risk of a military confrontation with the Russians. American General Hugh Shelton called Jackson's refusal "troubling," and hearings in the United States Senate suggested it may amount to insubordination, with Senator John Warner suggesting holding hearings regarding whether the refusal was legal and potentially changing those rules if it was.[73] British Chief of the Defence Staff Charles Guthrie, however, agreed with Jackson and told Clark this on the day Jackson refused the order.[74] Russia eventually withdrew its aid when some nations - including Bulgaria and Romania - granted U.S. requests and disallowed Russian aircraft to fly over their territory, halting their ability to bring in reinforcements.[75][76]

Circumstances Surrounding Retirement
Clark received another call from General Shelton in July 1999 in which he was told that Secretary Cohen wanted Clark to leave his command in April 2000. Clark was surprised by this, as he saw SACEURs as being expected to serve at least 3 years and often asked to stay on for a 4th, while this date would give him less than 3 years of service at the post.[77] Clark was told that this was necessary because General Joseph Ralston was leaving his post as the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and would need another 4-star command within 60 days or he would be forced to retire. Ralston was not going to be appointed Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff due to an extramarital affair in his past, and the SACEUR position was said to be the last potential post for him.[78] Clark said this explanation "didn't wash" because he believed the legalities could have been sorted out to let him serve a full 3 years.[79] Clinton signed onto Ralston's reassignment, although David Halberstam wrote that both he and Madeleine Albright were angered at Clark's treatment. Clark spent the remainder of his time as SACEUR overseeing peacekeeper forces and, without a new command to take, was forced into retirement from the military on May 2, 2000.[80][81]

Rumors persisted that Clark was forced out due to his contentious relationship with some in Washington D.C.; however, he has dismissed such rumors, calling it a "routine personnel action," and the Department of Defense said it was merely a "general rotation of American senior ranks."[82] However, a NATO ambassador told the International Herald Tribune that Clark's dismissal seemed to be a "political thing from the United States."[83] General Hugh Shelton would say of Clark during his 2004 campaign that "the reason he came out of Europe early had to do with integrity and character issues, things that are very near and dear to my heart. I'm not going to say whether I'm a Republican or a Democrat. I'll just say Wes won't get my vote,"[84][85]. Shelton never elaborated further on what these issues were.[86]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_Clark